T Nation

Dr. King Urban Legends

By the beard of Odin!

Had I known I would be inviting body blows from both Jack Dempsey and Marvin Hagler, I would have perhaps chosen my words a bit more carefully.

But really, gentlemen. There is no need to insult me by implying that I am a liberal, or that I read “neo-Confederate rags”. And “anti-Lincoln”?! Good thing I didn’t quote 1 Peter 2:18, or I might be accused of being anti-Christ as well.

In fact, although Lincoln was not my favorite US president (I am more partial to the other three individuals depicted on Mt. Rushmore), I bear Mr. Lincoln no particular ill will. He was, I suppose, a brilliant politician who achieved his aims at a terrible cost. What these aims were is a matter of some debate. Personally, I do not believe that he committed the nation to a bloody Civil War primarily to “free the slaves”, any more than I believe that the primary concern of the planners of “Operation Iraqi Freedom” was necessarily the freedom of the Iraqi people.

As for the fine quotes provided by you both, demonstrating that Lincoln in fact abhorred the institution of slavery and hoped for the equality of all men, well, I can provide you with practically the same quotes by Thomas Jefferson nearly a century earlier, and we all know what a notorious slaveholder he was.

To be fair, I can also give you some of Jefferson’s other quotes, which make him out to be just as insulting and condescending toward the black race as any Aryan Nation disciple today. Although Jefferson is one of my heroes, I don’t endorse his views on blacks, any more than you probably endorse the equivalent views expressed by Mr Lincoln, regardless of historical context.

I concede that Lincoln was speaking the language of his day, to an audience that probably held these comments to be true even more than Lincoln did himself. The same can be said for his use of racial slurs (of which, I confess, Jack, I have no comprehensive log).

The original point in my post above was not, in fact, to “prove” that Lincoln was a racist, only to suggest that he could be (and has been) considered one by today’s politically-correct standards. That, and to suggest that John Wilkes Booth did not kill Lincoln for allowing blacks the vote, as was claimed, but rather because Lincoln was responsible, in Booth’s mind, for the destruction and humiliation of the South.

[quote]pookie wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Aren’t you disgusted though, if someone does great things or produces great works, then is a scum bucket in personal affairs?

I’m more disgusted by scum buckets who haven’t accomplished anything remarkable in their lives, but feel no qualms at disparaging those who have, for no other reason than they need to spew senseless hate daily to make themselves feel better.

Wouldn’t you, as a fervent admirer of MLK, prefer to start a thread to discuss the man’s accomplishments and what they’ve meant to millions of people since then? Wouldn’t that interest an admirer of the man more than various urban legends of dubious origin?
[/quote]

Why do you doubt my sincerity, Pooks? I never doubt anything about you.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
As a great admirer of Dr. King’s, I was shocked when I read some of this:

Dr. King plagarized his doctoral dissertation, and cheated on his wife repeatedly. He may not have even been named Martin!

I would like to hunt down and see if he used to beat white prostitutes. I HAD read that he used to fuck white prostitutes while screaming: “I’m fucking for Jay-sus!!”. That was apparently on an FBI tape.

Anyone know the real deal and a good read?[/quote]

According to Hoover’s FBI, Dr. King was also a Communist.

"Personally, I do not believe that he committed the nation to a bloody Civil War primarily to “free the slaves”

That’s your right. The seceded states seemed to disagree.

Alabama preamble to the secession ordinance: The party of Lincoln was ‘avowedly hostile to the domestic institutions and the peace of prosperity of the Southern people’

Texas declaration of causes: With Lincoln?s election the country has fallen under control of ‘a great sectional party?proclaiming the debasing doctrine of the equality of all men, irrespective of race and color ? a doctrine at war with nature’

South Carolina?s ?Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify Secession?: 'With Lincoln?s inauguration on March 4, ‘this party will take possession of the government?and a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States’

Mississippi?s ?Declaration of Immediate Causes?: ‘There was no choice left but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the union, whose principals have been subverted to work our ruin.’

‘Fanatical organizations were assiduously engaged in exciting amongst the slaves a spirit of discontent and revolt.’ The Republican Party, gripped by a ‘spirit of ultra fanaticism’ was determined to deny slave owners access to the territories and would surround the South with ‘states in which slavery should be prohibited?thus rendering property in slaves so insecure as to be comparatively worthless.’ Davis described slavery as a institution which a ‘superior race’ had used to transform ‘brutal savages into docile, intelligent, and civilized agricultural laborers’ ? Jefferson Davis, to Confederate Congress, April 29, 1861.

1ST) Why are we questioning what a dead man may or may not have done? Honestly, this is kinda lame. It doesn’t change the fact that he fought for the rights of many disadvantaged people. The cynic in me wouldn’t be surprised if any of the allegations are true–but come on, this is no better than those rags that print BS about celebrities that we don’t care about.

And HH, why are you such a hanger-on’er? First with the USMC and now now with MLK?

2ND) How did this thread become about someone who died over 140 yrs ago? The history we learned in school is a lie. Though Lincoln may have been anti-slavery that was not the reason they were freed. It’s simple economics. There wasn’t a magic boundary that a slave could cross that would somehow make him less hated by white people. I’ve stated more than once on this site before slavery was ended to right the inequities of free labor. Slavery was not legal in the northern states and as a point in fact industry suffered in the north because of the cost of labor. This was the main issue between southern and northern states. FREE LABOR. By freeing the slaves it was assumed that many would ?flee? north thus driving down the cost of labor. All Lincoln did was wrap it into a nice little package so as to make it ‘PC’. But again I’m a cynic.

I find it interesting that preserving the Union - what I would argue was Lincoln’s more essential motivation - is considered such a weak position that people clamor to establish Lincoln as an almost pure abolitionist. I suppose it provides the additional rhetorical power that almost no one would dare to contest the principles behind abolition, whereas it is easy to argue that preservation of the Union is not a legitimate pretext for war.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Slavery was not legal in the northern states and as a point in fact industry suffered in the north because of the cost of labor. This was the main issue between southern and northern states. FREE LABOR. By freeing the slaves it was assumed that many would ?flee? north thus driving down the cost of labor.[/quote]

This is interesting. I’m not an expert, but my understanding was that the South had a much more fragile economy that was entirely dependent on slave labor to function. The north had industries that were supported by indentured servants and lower-wage workers, whereas the south mainly manufactured textiles. I could be mistaken.

[quote]nephorm wrote:
the south mainly manufactured textiles. I could be mistaken.[/quote]

It came in real handy for all those white hoods and white flags.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
1ST) Why are we questioning what a dead man may or may not have done? Honestly, this is kinda lame. It doesn’t change the fact that he fought for the rights of many disadvantaged people. The cynic in me wouldn’t be surprised if any of the allegations are true–but come on, this is no better than those rags that print BS about celebrities that we don’t care about.

And HH, why are you such a hanger-on’er? First with the USMC and now now with MLK?

2ND) How did this thread become about someone who died over 140 yrs ago? The history we learned in school is a lie. Though Lincoln may have been anti-slavery that was not the reason they were freed. It’s simple economics. There wasn’t a magic boundary that a slave could cross that would somehow make him less hated by white people. I’ve stated more than once on this site before slavery was ended to right the inequities of free labor. Slavery was not legal in the northern states and as a point in fact industry suffered in the north because of the cost of labor. This was the main issue between southern and northern states. FREE LABOR. By freeing the slaves it was assumed that many would ?flee? north thus driving down the cost of labor. All Lincoln did was wrap it into a nice little package so as to make it ‘PC’. But again I’m a cynic.[/quote]

Who are you to decide what people should care about? Some may care about the motivations of people who were very influential in American life.

The slaves were freed because Lincoln perceived that the issue was tearing the country apart. He couldn’t legally do anything to abolish it, but did so at the opportunity of the war. The south was no longer part of the United States, so he could do as he wished.

Back to MLK: Was the man a phony? Did he preach one thing in public but practice something else in private? That was my original question, which some used to flame me. I find the topic interesting. If you doubt my sincerity, then don’t respond in the thread. How fucking simple is that?

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
He may not have even been named Martin!

WHAT!
Sound the alarm, deploy the troops. Not Martin! Holy Crap, Headhunter, who would have thought this! Thank god you told us that.
I really don’t know how I could have lived with that lie for so long.
[/quote]

Well, you lived with ‘Schicklgruber’ for quite a while. :wink:

By Wotan’s Beard (again)!

Headhunter, why do you play the Nazi-schtick again?
Oh, there’s a line under my profile which says that I’m from Germany. While I never specifically said that I, myself am German, you probably assume that it’d be some great joke to mention Adolf every time .

This is seriously very funny. I consider these clever remarks the HITraining for my brain’s humor center.
Keep em coming-
S.

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:

Oh, there’s a line under my profile which says that I’m from Germany. While I never specifically said that I, myself am German, you probably assume that it’d be some great joke to mention Adolf every time .

[/quote]

Well, technically, Adolf wasn’t German, either. But I guess the Austrians aren’t as fun to pick on.

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
This is seriously very funny. I consider these clever remarks the HITraining for my brain’s humor center.
Keep em coming-
S.
[/quote]

Would it be more amusing if he started saying “sitzpinkler” instead?

j/k, couldn’t resist.

[quote]nephorm wrote:
I find it interesting that preserving the Union - what I would argue was Lincoln’s more essential motivation - is considered such a weak position that people clamor to establish Lincoln as an almost pure abolitionist. I suppose it provides the additional rhetorical power that almost no one would dare to contest the principles behind abolition, whereas it is easy to argue that preservation of the Union is not a legitimate pretext for war.[/quote]

“Emancipation of African slaves” does sound a lot more noble of a justification for war than does “preservation of revenue from federal tariffs” doesn’t it?

But then, all wars are claimed to be about freedom, when probably they are really about economics.

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
By Wotan’s Beard (again)!

Headhunter, why do you play the Nazi-schtick again?
Oh, there’s a line under my profile which says that I’m from Germany. While I never specifically said that I, myself am German, you probably assume that it’d be some great joke to mention Adolf every time .

This is seriously very funny. I consider these clever remarks the HITraining for my brain’s humor center.
Keep em coming-
S.
[/quote]

Lighten up, dude. You had to know that putting Germany on your profile would invite this, so I assumed you had a sense of humor. I thought you were INVITING that stuff.

:wink:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Schwarzfahrer wrote:

Oh, there’s a line under my profile which says that I’m from Germany. While I never specifically said that I, myself am German, you probably assume that it’d be some great joke to mention Adolf every time .

Well, technically, Adolf wasn’t German, either. But I guess the Austrians aren’t as fun to pick on.
[/quote]

No rational person blames the people of today for the actions of people from 70 years ago. I assumed he knew what he was doing.

Of course, we have black folks here who want reparations for slavery. Maybe they don’t think the same way.

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
nephorm wrote:
I find it interesting that preserving the Union - what I would argue was Lincoln’s more essential motivation - is considered such a weak position that people clamor to establish Lincoln as an almost pure abolitionist. I suppose it provides the additional rhetorical power that almost no one would dare to contest the principles behind abolition, whereas it is easy to argue that preservation of the Union is not a legitimate pretext for war.

“Emancipation of African slaves” does sound a lot more noble of a justification for war than does “preservation of revenue from federal tariffs” doesn’t it?

But then, all wars are claimed to be about freedom, when probably they are really about economics.[/quote]

Hmmm…Hitler started WWII for Lebensraum. Is that about economics? I don’t think so — he hated the topic.
Perhaps in a deeper sense, to establish European hegemony, it could be considered that way.

[quote]nephorm wrote:
I find it interesting that preserving the Union - what I would argue was Lincoln’s more essential motivation - is considered such a weak position that people clamor to establish Lincoln as an almost pure abolitionist. I suppose it provides the additional rhetorical power that almost no one would dare to contest the principles behind abolition, whereas it is easy to argue that preservation of the Union is not a legitimate pretext for war.[/quote]

Yeah, Neph - this is interesting. Although the two are intertwined, preservation of the Union as a casus belli gets no traction at all as legitimate, this despite the Constitution’s explicit mentioning of Insurrections and Rebellions.

Abolition was an important part of Union preservation - after all, the point of secession was to skip town because the Republicans actually had the audacity to try and deal a legislative death to slavery - but it is odd how quickly the ‘Unionist’ reason gets swept aside in order to talk about abolition.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

Hmmm…Hitler started WWII for Lebensraum. Is that about economics? I don’t think so — he hated the topic.

[/quote]The word “economy” comes from the Greek oikonomia, meaning “managing the household”, so in that sense, Hitler’s desire to enlarge the living room (Lebensraum) was entirely economic. :wink:

Seriously, though, this would be a great topic for another thread, but seeing as this is your thread, Headhunter, I don’t feel so guilty perpetuating the hijack. :wink:

The German economy was in a shambles as a result of its losses in the First World War and the restrictive stipulations of the Treaty of Versailles. The value of the currency plunged from 4 marks to the dollar in 1921 to 4 billion marks to the dollar in 1923, as a result of the punitive reparations leveled on Germany by its enemies. Adding insult to injury, the French Army occupied the Ruhr valley, crippling Germany’s industrial capability. And then, just when things were beginning to get better, the Great Depression hit.

Hitler and the National Socialist Party were elected on campaign promises of “work to the unemployed, prosperity to failed business people, profits to industry, and expansion to the Army”. Germany’s most influential industrialists, bankers, and business leaders supported Hitler, believing he and the Nazis would be good for business.

Once he seized control of Germany, Hitler implemented a “guns-before-butter” policy similar to FDR’s Tennessee Valley Authority, bolstering the economy by building infrastructure, fortifying the Wehrmacht, and expanding industry.

Hitler’s retaking of the Rhineland, the annexation of Austria, and his aggressive war for Lebensraum were all certainly economic in nature. As he stated in Mein Kampf, “When the territory of the Reich embraces all the Germans and finds itself unable to assure them a livelihood, only then can the moral right arise to acquire foreign territory…and the tears will produce the daily bread for generations to come.” In other words, he perceived that his conquests were perpetrated out of economic necessity.

Even Hitler’s famous Anti-semitism was to a large extent economic in nature, as he considered the Jews to be the secret controllers of the world’s finances and banking institutions, and responsible for engineering the economic collapses in Germany and throughout the world.

So yes, even when a war machine spins on an axis of evil, it is still money that makes it go 'round. How’s that for a mixed metaphor?

Headhunter, I hope you choke.